M/s The Jay Shree Chemicals & Fertilizers Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata
Central Excise
2018 (7) TMI 1589 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 21-6-2018
Appeals No. E/75273/2018 – FO/A/76343/2018 & FO/76349/2018
Central Excise
SHRI P.K.CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Shri S. Sarkar, Advocate for the Appellant (s)
Shri D. Halder, A.C. (AR) for the Respondent (s)
ORDER
Per Shri P. K. Choudhary :
The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 11/KOL-III/2017 dated 24.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Appeal-II), Kolkata.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Sulphuric Acid and Super Phosphate, classifiable under Chapter 28 and 31 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant, during the period from March, 2011 to September, 2012, cleared the goods from the factory on payment of duty at the ra
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the appellants. Penalty of Rs. 31,22,159/- was also imposed on the appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in- Original and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant-assessee. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal.
3. The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant filed a written submission and also relied upon various case laws. The Ld. Advocate contended that after receipt of the Show Cause Notice, the appellant had paid the entire amount of duty amounting to Rs. 31,22,159/- by cash through their bankers. He further, submitted that the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in- Original dated 24.09.2014 confirmed and appropriated the entire amount of CENVAT duty of Rs. 31,75,136/- as paid by the appellant on clearance of fertilizer under Notification No. 1/2011-CE(Supra) and they are in appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) against the demand of interest and imposition of penalty. He
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ded Tax. As there was no non-payment of duty in the present case, payment of interest is not sustained. He relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise. Vadodara Vs. Banco Products (India) Ltd. reported in 2011 (15) taxmann.com 9 CESTAT [2011] 33 STT 363 (Ahmedabad-CESTAT).
5. The Ld. D.R. reiterated the discussions and findings of the Lower Authorities.
6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records.
7. I find that it is evident from the record that the appellants paid 1% duty from the CENVAT Account, which is reflected in the CENVAT Account returns. It is also noted that the appellants have complied with all the necessary statutory returns within the stipulated time and the fact of claiming exemption benefit was disclosed in the ER-1 returns filed during the relevant period. It is also not in dispute that the appellants paid the entire duty amount through the CENVAT Account and thereafter, through the current account, thereby, causing no los
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =